The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday opened confirmation-of-charges hearings in The Hague for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, in a case centred on killings linked to his anti-drugs campaign.
Prosecutors allege that Duterte bears criminal responsibility for murder as a crime against humanity and have asked judges to confirm charges so the case can proceed to trial.
At the opening of the hearing, prosecutors set out an argument that killings were carried out by police officers and hit squad members within a system driven by fear, coercion and financial incentives. In court, the prosecution said some perpetrators were motivated by payment, while others acted to avoid becoming targets themselves. Deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang described a pattern in which, for some participants, killing became a “perverse form of competition”.
Duterte, 80, was not present in the courtroom, having waived his right to attend this stage of proceedings. He has denied the allegations and previously described the case against him as false. Judges had earlier postponed a hearing amid health concerns, but later ruled that he was fit to participate in the pretrial process following medical assessment.
The current proceedings are procedural and do not amount to a trial on the merits. At the confirmation stage, the ICC assesses whether prosecutors have produced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the crimes charged. If the judges confirm the charges, the case moves to trial before a different chamber. Judges have 60 days after the hearing phase to decide whether the evidence threshold has been met.
The charges concern killings dating from Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City and later as president, when his “war on drugs” became the defining policy of his administration. Prosecutors are seeking confirmation of three counts of murder as crimes against humanity. Reuters has previously reported that the prosecution case refers to more than 75 victims in support of those charges.
The case has become a focal point in a long-running dispute over accountability for anti-drug operations in the Philippines. Official police figures have put the number of deaths in anti-drug operations during Duterte’s presidency at just over 6,000, while rights groups and other monitors have long argued the real toll was significantly higher, with estimates reaching as many as 30,000. The difference reflects disputes over methodology, classification of killings, and whether deaths by unidentified gunmen should be counted as part of the same campaign.
The opening of the hearing also prompted public mobilisation in the Philippines. Relatives of victims and activists gathered in metropolitan Manila for protests and organised public screenings of the proceedings. Families of those killed during anti-drug operations said they were hoping the court process in The Hague would provide a route to justice that had been difficult to secure domestically, despite a small number of local convictions in high-profile cases.
The proceedings are unfolding against a contentious political backdrop in Manila. Supporters of Duterte have criticised the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for surrendering the former president to a court whose jurisdiction they contest. The issue has also fed into wider political rivalry involving Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, who has announced plans to seek the presidency in 2028.
Jurisdiction remains one of the central legal issues in the case. The ICC prosecution announced in 2018 that it would open a preliminary examination into killings linked to the anti-drugs campaign. Shortly afterwards, the Philippines moved to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. Duterte’s legal team later argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because of that withdrawal. ICC judges rejected that argument, ruling that withdrawal cannot be used to shield individuals from accountability for crimes already under consideration. An appeal on that point remains pending.
For now, the immediate significance of Monday’s hearing lies in whether the prosecution can satisfy the court’s threshold for moving forward. The pretrial chamber is not deciding guilt or innocence at this stage. Its task is narrower but consequential: determining whether the evidence is sufficient for a full international criminal trial to proceed.
